[inaudible conversations] ..

>> republican senators mitch mcconnell and lamar alexander offer their assessment of the president's inaugural speech. later we will re-air the hearing on sexual misconduct at an air force base in texas. several lighter than sicilia about the tomorrow morning. republican senators a member of the appropriations committee speaks to the council on foreign relations on how foreign policy is affected by the budget and debt. that is at 830 eastern.

and janet napolitano will focus on cybersecurity and immigration and terrorism and disaster relief. that will be at 9:30 p.m. on c-span3. on c-span, at 10:00 a.m. eastern, massachusetts senator john kerry testifies before the foreign relations committee. is it against the confirmation process for john kerry and secretary of state. he is scheduled to be introduced by secretary of state hillary clinton. >> this started in the 1940s with sylvia porter. and has been in the 1930s, the hard economic times of the 1930s. we see everything from alcoholics anonymous to napoleon thinking they can get rich and fascism and communism, and that

was something that you can feel at the time. there is a cool thing going on at that time. and so we developed personal-finance out of this. sylvia's goal is to educate people so that the great depression will never happen again. but it is of its time. the idea that we can teach people certain skills and that they learn these skills, we will all be okay. >> the dark side of the personal-finance industry on "after words" on c-span2. look for more booktv online. like us on facebook. >> british prime minister david cameron says that if the conservative party is returned to power at the next election, there will be a general referendum on britain's future in the european union. he outlined the new relationships in europe. this is a little bit more than 40 minutes. >> i would like to thank limburg

for hosting this this morning. this morning i would like to talk about the future of europe. but first let us remember the past. seven years ago, europe was being torn apart by a catastrophic conflict. the skies of london lit by flames night after night. millions dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty. as we remember the sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in europe for more to sustain peace came about. it didn't happen like a change in the weather. it happened because of determined work over generations and a commitment to friendship and the resolve never to revisit that dark past. a commitment epitomized by the treaty found 50 years ago this

week. after the berlin wall came down, i visited that city and i will never forget it. the abandoned checkpoints in the sense of excitement about the future. the knowledge that a great continent was coming together. healing those wounds of our history is the central story of the european union. what churchill described as war and tyranny have always been banished from our continent. today hundreds of millions dwell in freedom from the baltic to the western continent and now we must never take this for granted. the first compass of the european union to secure peace has been achieved. we should pay tribute to all those in the european union alongside nato who made that happen. but today the overriding and main practice of the european

union is different. not to win peace, but to secure prosperity. challenges come not from within this continent, but from outside it. from a surging economy of the east and the south. a growing world economy benefits us all. we should be in no doubt that a new global rates of nations is underway today. a race for the wealth and for the jobs of the future. ..

and the industrial revolution to nonfans to write european history in europe has helped to radars. has made a contribution to europe. we have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny in persecution. we keep the flame of liberty alive. across the continent, and silent cemeteries played hundreds of thousands of british servicemen who gave their lives for europe's freedom we paid our parts for the iron curtain and

champ named into the e.u. of those countries that lost so many figures to communists. contained in this history is a crucial point about britain, our natural character, our attitude to europe. britain is characterized, but above all by his openness. we've always been a country that reaches out that leads the charge in the fight for free trade and against protectionism. as today as it's always been. independent, yes, but open to. i never want us to put it to drawbridge and retreat from the world. i'm not a british isolationist, but i want a better deal for britain. i wanted better deal if the

fantasy british prime minister for the future of the european union. a future in which wants and should want to play committed an active part. now some might then ask, why raise fundamental questions about the future of europe when europe is already in the midst to be deep crisis. why raise questions about britain's role would support in britain is already so did. there are always choices that they don't raise the difficult questions, but it is essential for europe and for britain that we do. there were three major challenges confronting us today. first, the problems in the euro zone picture than fundamental change in europe. second, there's a crisis that competitiveness is other nations across the world sora had. and third, there is a gap

between the e.u. and its citizens which has grown dramatic way in years. it is democratic accountability in consent that is yet particularly cute way if we don't address these challenges, i do not want that to happen. i want the european to be a success and the relationship between britain and keeps sna. that is why i'm here today to acknowledge the nature of the challenges we face and to set out how i believe the european union should respond to them and what i want to achieve for britain in its place within the european union conservative nature of the challenges for me.

there are some serious questions that will define the future of the european union and the future of every country within it. digging in is changing to help fix the current scene that has profound implications for all of us, whether in the single current era not. britain is not in the single currency and are not to be. when you do yours don't have the restructures to secure a successful currency for the long-term and those outside the euro zone also need certain safeguards to ensure access to the single market is not in any way compromised and we began to discuss these issues now. second, while there are some countries within the e.u. they are doing pretty well, taken as a whole, and their share of output is project it to fall by almost urging the next two

decades. this is the competitiveness challenge in much of a weakness in reading it is frankly self-inflicted. complex rules which restrict labor market that naturally occurring phenomenon just as excessive regulation is not some external plague has been visited on their businesses, these problems have been around for too long and progress in dealing with them has been purchased. as chancellor merkel has said, if you're today accounts for just over 7% of the west population and and produces 5% of total gdp, it is currently financing 50% of global social spending and it's obvious who will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity in its way of life. there is a grain frustration that is seen as something rather than acting on their behalf and

this frankly is intensified by the various solutions required to resolve the economic problems. people are increasingly frustrated the decisions taken further and further away made their living standards are slashed and force us to repeat or taxes used to build governments on the other side of the continent. we're for starting duties at some demonstrations of athens, madrid and rome. restarting casein in berlin, helsinki and the hague and of course were saying this frustration with the e.u. vary dramatically here in the united kingdom. europe's leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. indeed we have a duty to act on them and not just to fix the problems in the euro zone, but if in any emergency should plan for the amount as well as dealing with the present crisis center in the midst of present challenges we should plan for the future and what the world will look like when difficulties in the euro zone have been

overcome. the biggest danger to the european union comes not from those who advocate change, but those who denounce new thinking is heresy. in its long history, europe has experienced heretics that turned out to have point. my point is this. for the same will not secure long-term future for the euro zone. more of the sample not fit the european union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. more of the same will not ring the european union closer to a citizen. more of the same will just produce more of the same, less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs and that will make our countries not stronger, but weaker. that is why we need fundamental far-reaching change. so let me setup my vision for a new european union set for the 21st century. it is built on type is supposed

from the first is competitiveness. at the core of the european union, must be as is now the single market. britain is that the heart of a single market and must remain so. but the single market remains incomplete and services, energy, the various sectors that are the engines of the economy is only half the success that it could be. it is nonsense people online in parts of europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. i want completing the single market to be our draping mission. i want us to be at the forefront, also to transform a trade deals with the japan, india as the drive towards global free trade and i want us to be pushing to extend europe's most entrepreneurial companies for more e.u. direct is. they should be the officials,

the tasks that you european officials up in the morning and keep them working late into the night. so we urgently need to address the sclerotic on an affected decision-making us back. that means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic union relentlessly focused on helping countries to compete. can we really justify the huge number of expensive, expensive peripheral institutions? , justify commission that can ever larger? can we carry on with the multibillion pound budget not nearly enough enough focus on controlling spending and programs that haven't worked? i would ask this, when the competitiveness of the single market is so important, why is there an education council, but not a single market council? the second principle should be

flexibility. we need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of the e.u.'s members, east, west, large, small, old company. some contemplating much closer economic and political integration and many others including britain who would never embrace the goal. except of course for the single market to function we need a common set of rules in a way of enforcing them. we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends. competitiveness demands flexibility, choice, openness for your professorship in a no man's land between the rising economy of asia and the market driven north america. the e.u. must feel to act with the speed and flexibility of the network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a block. we must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one-size-fits-all approach, which implies all countries on the same level of integration.

the fact is they don't and we shouldn't assert that they do. some will claim this offends a central e.u. founding philosophy i was it merely reflects reality of the european union today. 17 members apart at the euro zone, 10 are not. 26 european countries are members, including four outside the european union. switzerland, norway, iceland, to countries, to e.u. countries, britain and ireland have retained border controls. some members like france and britain are ready, willing and able to take action in libya. others are comfortable with the use of military force. let us welcome the diversity instead of trying to snuff it out. let us stop all this talk of the two speed europe at fast lanes and slowing the same trains and

buses and frankly that is how the whole weary caravans if you like to a permanent fighting. instead, let us start from this proposition . we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one european union has essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. those of us outside the euro recognize this and that are likely to make some big institutional changes. by the same token, members of the euro zone should accept we can all member states will have changes we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen our democratic legitimacy. we should be able to make those changes, too. some will say, this will unravel the principle of the e.u. and you can't pick and choose what they said about your nation needs. i would argue that far from

unraveling is buying its members work closely because such one corporation is a much stronger glue and compulsion from the center. but playmaker further heretical proposition . the european treaty commits the member states to lay the foundation of our closer union among the peoples of europe. this has been consistently interpreted as applying that to people, but rather the states and institutions and has been compounded by a call to justice consistently supported decentralization. we understand and respect the rights of others but for britain and perhaps for others is not the object is and we would be much more comfortable if the treaty specifically said so. without being held back by the

others. so to those who say we have no vision for europe, i say we have. precluding a flexible union member states to share treaties and the idea of a corporation to represent and promote the values of european civilization in the world, to advance our shared interests by using a collective power to open markets and economic base across the whole of europe. we believe the nation is working together for security and diversity of energy supplies to tackle climate change and global poverty, to work together against terrorism and organized crime and continue to welcome new countries into the european union. this notion of flexibility and cooperation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union, but it is just as valid. my third principle this power must be able to flow back to

member states, not just away from them. this is promised by european leaders a decade ago. it was put in the treaty, but it has never been properly fulfilled. we need to have this principle properly. let's use this as the dutch prime minister has recently suggested to examine what the e.u. as a whole should do and what he should doing. in britain, we launched our balanced review to give us uninformed in active analysis of where it helps that were hampers. let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonized, to hankering for some unattainable and infinitely level playing field. countries are different. they make different choices. we can't harmonize everything.

for example, it's neither right nor necessary to claim the integrity of the single market are indeed full membership of the european union requires a working hours of hospital doctors to be said in brussels irrespective of turkish parliamentarians. in this family we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas of the european union has legislated, including environment, social affairs and crime. nothing should be off the table. my fourth principle of democratic accountability. we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national powers. there is not parliaments that will remain the true source of legitimacy. it is angela merkel has to answer to the great parliament that antonio samaras has to pass

measures and i must account on the e.u. budget negotiations come to safeguarding single market. they still and proper respect even fear it to national leaders that we need to recognize that properly on the way the e.u. does business. this principle is fearless. whatever the abridgment are enacted for the euro zone, they must work fairly for those countries inside it or outside it. that will be of particular importance to britain. we are not going to join the single currency, that there is no overwhelming economic region should share the same boundary anymore then the single market. our ability to help set its rules as the principal reason for membership of the european

union. it is a vital interest to protect the integrity and fairness for all of its members. that is why britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the euro some crazy stories to rewrite the rules of the school court nation and a keen union. so these five print the polls provide what i believe is the right approach for the european union. so now let me turn to what this means for britain. today public disillusionment with the e.u. is at an all-time high in their several reasons for this. people feel the e.u. is heading a direction that they never signed up to. they resent the interference of our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. thereunder at the point of it all is. many ask, why can't we simply have what we voted to join, the common market.

their anger biblical judgments in europe that impact on life in britain. of course some of the antipathy about europe in general really relate to the european human rights rather than the e.u. britain is leading european offers to do with this and there is indeed much more that needs to be done on this front. people also feel the e.u. is now headed for political integration are outside britain's comfort zone. they see treaty after treaty change in the balance between member states and the e.u. and they know they were never given a say. they had referendums promise, but not delivered. they say would happen to the euro and know that many political and business leaders urge britain to join at the time and haven't noticed expressions of contrition. they look at the 60 euros m. is taking and wonder what deeper integration for the euro zone

will mean for a country which will not join the euro. the result is the democratic consent in britain is now wafer thin. some people say they plan aside as a responsible, creates uncertainty for business and is it? over britain's place in the european union. but the question mark is already better. ignoring it is not going to make it go away. in fact, i would argue quite the reverse. those who refuse to contemplate consulting the british people would in my view make it more likely. simply asking the british people to carry on accepting european settlement under which they've had little choice as a path to ensuring when the question is finally put in a soundstage will have to be, it is much more likely the british people will reject the european union.

that is why i'm in favor of having a referendum. i believe in confronting this issue of the sheep shaping it, making the debate, not simply open a difficult situation will go away. some argue the solution is therefore to hold a referendum now. i understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately, but i don't believe to make a decision that this is the right way forward either for britain or europe as a whole. a vote today between the status quo and leaving the unit entirely for stories. now while the e.u.'s influx into what the future holds them assorted e.u. will emerge this crisis is not the time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country. it is wrong to ask people

whether to stay or go before we've had a chance to put the relationship rate. huckabee sensibly answer the question without answering the most basic issues. what exactly are we choosing to be and are out of? the european union that emerges from the euro zone crisis is going to be a very different body. it will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by measures to save the year is done. you need to allow time for that to happen and help shape the future of the european union so when the choice comes it will be a real one. a real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which britain shapes and respect rules of the market but is protect dicier safeguards and free of this various regulations that damages europe's competitiveness. a choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which britain is at the

forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade them where we leave the door open to new members. a new settlement subject to the democratic genistein accountability of national parliament, where member states combined inflexible cooperation, respecting differences are not always tried to eliminate them in which we have proved some powers can in fact be returned to member states. in other words, the settlement entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated european union i have described today. more flexible, more adaptable, more open, say two challenges of the modern age. note to those who say and there are those who say it, that a new settlement kid he negotiated, i would say listen to the views of other parties in other european countries arguing for powers to flow back to european states.

also look to what we have achieved already. prevented the obligation for britain to bail out euro zone members. we kept britain out of the fiscal conflict and bloodshed process to return existing justice and affairs powers secured in response the common fisheries policy. were starting to shape the reforms we need now. some of these things will not require treaty change, but i agree with president barroso and others have said. on stage in the two years the e.u. will need to agree on treaty change to make changes needed for the long-term future of the euro and entrench the diverse competitive democratically accountable europe received. i believe the best way to do this will be in a new treaty. today i add my voice to those already calling for this, that

my strong preference is to enact changes for the entire european union, not just for britain. if there is no appetite for a new treaty for us, then of course britain would be ready to address changes we need a negotiation with european partners. the next conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the british people for it to get rid of government to negotiate a new settlement with our european partners in the next. it will be the single market at its heart and when we've negotiated the settlement, will give the british people a referendum with a very simple and are out choice to stay in the european union on these new terms or two, altogether. it will be in and out

referendum. legislation will be drafted before the next election and if a conservative government is like it, will introduce enabling legislation immediately impacted by the end of the year to complete this negotiation on hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament. it is time for the british people to have their say. it is time for us to settle this question about written in europe. i say to the british people, this will be your decision. and when the choice comes, you'll have an important choice to make about our country's destiny. i understand the appeal of going it alone, chanting our encores, but it will be a decision will have to tape will have peer proponents on both sides of the argument will be to avoid exaggerated their claims. of course britain could make her

own way in the world outside the e.u. if we chose to do so. so could any other member state. the question we have to ask ourselves is this count is at the very best future for our country? we have to read carefully where an interest lies. alone would be free to take her on decisions just as we be free of our obligations to defend allies if we left nato. we don't leave nader because it's in our interest to stay at the benefits from its collective defense guarantee. we have more power and influence whether implemented sanctions against iran or syria or promoting democracy in burma if we connect together. if we leave the e.u., we cannot of course that era. they were made for many years our biggest dark and forever geographical neighborhood. retied by a complex web of legal commitments. hundreds of thousands of british people take for granted the

right to work, but then retired and any other e.u. country. even if we pull out completely, decisions made would continue to have a profound effect on our country, but we would've lost the remaining features and the decisions. we do need to wake very carefully consequences of no longer being inside the e.u. and single market as a full member. continued access to the single market is as i said absolutely vital for british business and jobs. since 2000 corporate has been a destination for one in five investments into europe and being part of the single market has been absolutely key to that achievement. there'll be plenty of time to test out the arguments in favor against the arrangement we negotiate. but majesty with one point we hear a lot about. verizon has suggested who suggest we could turn ourselves

into norway or switzerland with access to the single market, but outside the e.u. what i really be in our best interest? i admire those countries, but they're very different to rise. marbury sits on the biggest energy reserves in europe with over 500 billion euros. bravado is part of the single market and pays for the principle, it is a saint on setting rules. it just has to influence hysterectomies. the swiss had to negotiate access to single market sector by sector, excepting eagles over which they have no say of us not getting full access to the single market including key set yours like financial services. the fact is if you join an organization like the european union, there are rules. though not always get what you want, but that doesn't mean we should leave. not the benefits are stained and working together greater.

we would also like to think carefully about the impact on our influence of the table of international affairs. there's no doubt are more powerful in washington and beijing and delhi because for a powerful player inside the european union. that matters for jobs, influence, security. it matters to get things done in the world. it is by many toasts very clearly they want britain to remain in the european union. we should think carefully before giving the position up. if we left the european union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return. so we have time for proper debate and at the end of the debate coming to the british people will decide. i say to my partners, frustrated at some of them no doubt are, work with us on this. consider the extraordinary steps

to member search taking, substitute yuriko might've seemed impossible. it does what seems to me the steps needed to make britain and others more comfortable in a relationship with the european union are inherently outlandish or unreasonable. and just as i believe britain should want to remain in the e.u. said the european union should want us to say because the european union without pretense, without europe's strongest powers from a country in many ways invented the market, which plays by the rules come into force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of european union. it is hard to argue the e.u. would not be greatly diminished by britain's departure. let me finish today by saying this. i have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.

i know there will be those who say the vision i've outlined will be impossible to achieve, but there's no way our partners the british people have set themselves on a path that if we are comfortable being in the e.u. after 40 years, we never will be. i refuse to take such an attitude for britain or europe because the courage and conviction. i believe we can to vote for a more flexible, adaptable and open european union in which the interest of all its members can be met. with courage and conviction, i believe we can achieve a new settlement in which bert can be comfortable in all our countries can thrive. and when that referendum comes, let me say now free to negotiate negotiate such an arrangement, i will campaign with all my heart and all my soul. because i believe some in very

deeply, that britain's national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open european union in such a european union is best that the minute. ditto for the weeks, months and years i will not rest until the debate is one for the future of my country, success of the european union and prosperity of people for generations to come. thank you very much indeed. can't knock.mac [applause] [applause] [applause] >> before going to the importance of no national parliament, which doesn't still respect and sometimes fear as they said we have the time for questions. >> administer, how did the leader who said he didn't want

to spend his time banging on about europe, with cygnus have you had from your european colleagues suggesting they are favorable to this renegotiation? could you be more specific on the areas you're trying to renegotiate on? >> first of all, there's been a very big changes they argued in a speech in a single county has been driven a huge process of change. someone who will remain mamma said one thing you would have to worry about is treaty changes. we've had to accept it in one way projected and i've only been prime minister for two and a half years. this debate is happening now. the question is are politicians in britain going to stick their head in sand and let this debate have been or will be get out there, beat it, shape it and when international interest? what i set out as a program to reset our relationship with europe, but that to the british people in a referendum.

it's an active forward leaning pretty good for britain and the alternative is to the events she does and i'm not content to let that happen. in terms of conversations with european partners, i'd have another conversation in days and weeks. i think there's an understanding that changes required in europe. as an understanding retina surgery from the open, flexible, competitive era. there's a welcome for the fact were saying these are changes that should be there for all the european union. they would be tough to be in tough negotiations to come. my experience if you're single-minded about which you want, work in the queen of the european union and have reasonable relations with partners who can get things done. what i'm saying is first of all nothing is up to table. i put it very clearly the single market of the relationship.

i would -- over the coming months and years before the election because that would be an audit of what europe should do less and country should do more. next question. andy bell. >> you yourself said it can negotiate an arrangement, is not the logic of your position there is every chance britain will not negotiate an arrangement with other european part is in there for the possibilities you an ad campaign in that referendum you're talking about? you have to accept that the possibility. >> would steal a thesis on the table. if number one i'm told is going to be true to change promote the three proposed in the last two and a half years in the president of the commission, report and many others saying the treaty changes necessary. if britain can secure changes,

all of europe would benefit in previous negotiations we've demonstrated we can repatriate powers including coming out of the bailout. so i'm optimistic that engaged positive staff can achieve what is necessary in britain's interest. julie macphee from the standard. >> thank you. what a referendum be held in parliament a matter what stage negotiations there are? if there's another coalition deal, would this be a dealbreaker to hold this referendum in any coalition negotiations? >> simple answer to that. clearly this referendum will be held in the first half. arguing for a conservative majority of the next election i'm confident we can achieve

that. if i am prime minister, this will happen. finally, let's have neck problems in. >> thank you, prime minister. you couldn't have been clearer. if you can get a better deal you will vote yes. do not go to the british people to be equally clear if you cannot get a better deal, are you saying you would vote no for britain to get out of europe? if you fudge the question, which is just it, are we entitled to assume you want people to think that, but you are scared to a? >> i would argue who goes in to a negotiation hoping and expecting to fail? that may be the approach you take. i go into negotiations expecting to succeed and for all the reasons i've given today, there's every chance of success. there's a need for treaty

change, massive changes taking place. a huge agenda in terms of up inflexible euro. ending on the choice will not be for politicians. the choice would be for british people. we are not comfortable with the state of our membership today. it does seem to change. i'm setting out for how we change that, how you put that to people in the hand will decide. do i believe britain's future is better off inside a european union? yes i do enough to be fighting for. >> administer, i still don't understand what it is you really don't like. the changes to the market can be achieved exactly as europe is. just finally, if you turn out to be the british prime minister who takes a set of europe as her legacy to this country, how are you personally going to feel about that? >> in the speech is a huge amount of detail about things we want to change.

there are safeguards for the market. there is this audit of what europe does and shouldn't do. there are changes on issues like an ever closer union that's been at the heart of one of the problems britain and british people have felt with our membership for so long. there's a huge agenda to take action on. i want to be the british prime minister who confronts and it's the right answer for on the circuit issues. take the issue of the future of the united kingdom. many people said obviously you have to our what is happening in scotland. at the scottish people have voted for a government, the westminster parliament should be a peer which trust the people. that is why there will be a referendum on whether scotland's jason united kingdom and i passionately believe it should and i hope that it will. i think it's the same and some ice on this issue. put your head in the sand, you

can pretend somehow this issue would go away and somehow with this will turn out all right. i think that is simply incredible. there's a huge debate underway about britain's place in europe. massive change in terms of the european union and single currency. the bold answer in our national interest is to get out there, shape the debate, picture the british people insecure economic people. that's the path is set out in the recourse for britain. can a thank you overcoming at this early hour. can i think bloomberg for hosting nice and thank you for your question. thank you very much indeed. [applause]

>> prime minister, nick weekend. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, before the honorable gentleman's question, i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to the first battalion duke of lancaster regiment had he died in the hospital at birmingham last wednesday as a result of his he sustained in afghanistan. he can decipher the safety of the british people and is incredibly brave contribution must never be forgotten. profound condolences are with him. mr. speaker, in addition to my duties will have further

meetings later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house and kutcher will associate with the comments about david roberts at this difficult time. on monday, the prime minister for a generation was the struggle terrorism. on tuesday, his government sent 5600 troops. why is there such a gap between what the prime minister says that what the prime minister does? >> i think the honorable gentleman asked an important question and i do not deny that we've had to take difficult decisions about defense spending in our country. let me make this point. dirty 3 billion pounds a year we have the fourth-largest defense budget anywhere in the world and it's very important we make sure we have the right scale and shape and capabilities. that is why in the defense review were investing in room,

special forces, key intelligence capabilities, making sure we also have the air power we need to make highly mobile armed forces. i'm incredibly proud of what our armed forces doing because we are balancing the budget, they'll be better equipped for the future. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 60 years ago this sunday do not see concentration camp auschwitz was liberated. i say mark holocaust memorial day, with the prime minister committed to ensuring young people in this country always have the opportunity to learn what to place in our shared history will he commend the work of the holocaust educational trust? [shouting] >> by honorable friend speaks for the whole house and country in raising this issue on this day in the holocaust education trust the brilliant organization of make sure young people from schools across the country at

the opportunity to go into the places with the terrible events of the holocaust took place. i have immense provision to seek a meeting with a holocaust survivor whose story was truly heroic and truly heartbreaking, but who in her 90s is still making arguments in making this case a future generations will learn. we should also not just about the european holocaust, but more recently in rwanda, bosnia, cambodia and elsewhere that there's too much persecution in our world. >> miller band. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to robert shaw first time, duke of lancaster's regiment. he shows the utmost courage or bravery in condolences to the whole house to his family and friends. mr. speaker, can the prime minister guarantee if he gets his referendum to be campaigning

to stay in? >> yes, i want it to be part of a reform is successful european union. [shouting] this entire argument is about what is the natural interest of britain. we want the european union more open, more flexible, more competitive. not just good for britain, but good for europe, too. >> i don't think that is quite a complete answer to my question. let's see if we can press them a bit further about how he's going to go. is he saying that if he doesn't achieve its negotiating strategy, he will recommend -- hang on a minute. is he saying if he doesn't achieve its negotiating strategy, he will recommend britain is the european union? >> accepting the premise

conservatives will win the next election. [shouting] interestingly, not raising effect the unemployment figures are down once again today. employment is set by 90,000 in the rate of job growth/share was the fastest since 1989. but i ask this question very quickly. i want to see a strong britain and a reformed europe. we have a clear plan. you want to reset the relationship. who will hold the referendum and recommend the resettlement to the british people. has he got a clue what he would do? [shouting] [inaudible] [shouting] he said six months to think about this. it's not too much to ask the

right honorable member who's not here would say unequivocally that he would vote yes in a referendum. the children secretary hiding away down there has briefed that he wants us to leave the european union. i'm just asking the prime minister a straight question. in the referendum, can he guarantee he will vote yes in a referendum? >> i support britain's membership of a reformed european union. [shouting] only the leader of the opposition would go into negotiations expected to fail. we go into negotiations knowing what's best for britain. let me put it to him again. we now have a very clear approach, a renegotiation and a. what is his answer? is not to leave the opposition and you can't fight something with nothing.

[shouting] >> the reason the people behind him are sharing is not because they want to vote yes. it's because they want to vote no. that is the reality for the prime minister. he still hasn't answered the question. let's put it another way and give him another chance. we know from this morning that he wants to go out and negotiate the fairness and flexibility in motherhood apple pie in europe. can you name one thing, just one day that if he doesn't get, her recommend leaving the european union? i don't want britain to leave the european union. i want britain to reform the european union. >> members are shot in the head off at the prime minister. they must he says. let's hear the answer. >> we've been clear about what we want to see change.

a whole series of areas, employment legislation, environmental legislation, where europe has gone far too far on me to properly safeguard the market. we also want to make sure the ever closer union doesn't apply to the united kingdom. and they put it to him again. we want a renegotiation another referendum. what does he want? or doesn't he know? >> he can't answer the most basic questions. whether he'd say yes or whether he say now. >> why can't he answer to vote yes in a referendum because of the people behind them. the only thing that's changed a few to go is not the situation

in europe, but a situation. why doesn't he admit he is being driven not to the national interest, the chart to a biased [shouting] >> the most basic question is do you want a referendum? i do, does he? >> now, we don't want it in our referendum. [shouting] >> my position is the same as his position when we put it together -- when they put it together and october 2011 against and cannot referendum. my position hasn't changed. his position has changed, mr. speaker. and here is the truth. six months on a referendum can you tell us whether it's a yes or no.

>> order. i apologize. i said members shouldn't shut the head of the prime ministers. neither should members shut their heads out that the leader of the opposition. order. these questions must and will be heard. >> mr. speaker, he's going to corporate careers of uncertainty and take a huge gamble with our economy. he's giving in to his party and can't deliver for britain. [shouting] i have the right to say politely hazel argument about uncertainty is undermined at the fact he cannot answer whether he wants a referendum or not. can i give him a little advice? pennies to go away, get the policies, come back and tell us what it is. in the meantime, our approach is that the british people think is right for our economy and will

fight for it in the years ahead. [shouting] .. a have quite rightly launched his campaign today. above all what britain will be doing this meeting the agreement we made to 1.7% spent on aid a commitment that we made that we have kept whereas many of other countries have proven their promises.

we will be using that money to make sure we focus on the issues of malnutrition undernutrition and stunting because it's not acceptable in 2013 that there are millions of families in the world go hungry every day and every night. >> mr. speaker, the british industry as a class success story. 82% of the cars reproduce we import. in what investment is continuing membership of the european union has the prime minister heard the growing voices of concern being expressed from within the industry over the prolonged uncertainties this will create and dessi began to recognize the damage he might do to our economy and they sector on hundreds of thousands of british workers? >> first of all let me say i agree with the honorable gentleman. it's very welcome for the first time since the 1970s britain is once again under the net

exporter. that's something to celebrate but i simply don't agree with him about what he says about business. this morning you see the institute of directors the director general of the cbi the chamber of commerce that federation of small businesses all coming out in and saying this is the right approach. let's get a good deal for britain and reform your up and make it more competitive and open and that is the choice of the people in the referendum. >> mr. speaker i welcome the prime minister's answer friending hunger and the use of the g8 leadership for that campaign. does he recognize the importance of the ricotta's of hunger to land grab, the use of land to buy fuel in the need to make sure that investment in these countries is simply transparent. will he use the g8 to seek bold action on these recourses. >> my honorable friend is right to raise this and because britain is meeting its promises in terms of the money for aid where best place to make the argument about what i call the

golden thread that are all the things that help move countries from poverty to wealth making sure the proper root of law accountability free plat -- press property rights and we will be making the argument in the g8 we need greater transparency about land ownership companies in greater transparency about tax. these are arguments that britain will be pushing in and. sneak will the prime minister confirm that the first government for 30 years not to offer hard-pressed consumers a government-funded energy efficiency scheme following the closure of -- >> eco-scheme which is many times the size of the warm front. in eco-could help up to 230 families a year so it's potentially a better scheme. >> what assessments has the prime minister made of

unemployment in my constituency and in particular more women and and -- speeding the point the honorable gentleman makes is absolutely right. there are now more people employed in the private sector than ever before and there are also more women employed in our country than ever before. when you look at the employment figures that have come out today what is remarkable is that employment is optimal in every region and unemployment is down and almost every region. there's a huge amount to do but the over 500,000 new jobs in the private sector last year the fest at job creation rate since 1989. this i think shows we are on the right track. >> mr. speaker does the prime minister believe the present city council should receive a 12% cost in local government funding and district council

received -- with the prime minister look at this again and give precedence cracks. >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman is of course government across-the-board is facing a difficult funding settlement. i don't hide from that but the biggest are as follows the area in his constituency is 501 pounds whereas in my constituency is 320 pounds. i completely accept that needs are greater in different parts of the country and that is why the figures are different but i think the figures speak for themselves. >> mr. speaker may i congratulate my right honorable friend on a landmark -- demonstrating leadership of our country for europe but can i invite my right honorable friend to agree with me on this issue

that it isn't simply the united kingdom which is seeking to renegotiate the treaty's. there is a -- on those members of the eurozone who have introduced the disaster single currency policy in europe. they're the ones who are in need of figuring the negotiations. not just us. >> i think i right honorable friend for what he says. the point he makes is correct that there is a big change taking place in europe because of the reforms necessary to deal with a single currency. that is why change in europe is coming. there is also already a big debate in britain about our role in europe and they think politicians have a choice. you either walk towards that and trying to shape that choice and get a good deal for britain and make changes that will benefit all of europe or stick your head in the sand as the party opposite is doing. [inaudible]

[laughter] >> it's a very easy answer which is the scottish nationalists in my view misguided me and want to leave the united kingdom as it is. i will be arguing and across the house we will be arguing scotland should stay in the united kingdom. what i want to see in europe is a changed europe and that we asked the people per no. >> mark halsey. >> quite a busy morning and i'm sure the prime minister has seen today's report highlighting the huge savings that could be made from turning around the country's most troubled families such as the 24 million pounds to 32,000 per family. may i ask him what he is doing -- that i local authorities across the country? >> i think i write honorable friend is making an important point and i don't understand why people are trying to shut down

what should be a cross party initiative to deal with the most troubled families in our country there is one that spend up to 20% of its budget on just three% of its families. this is a problem affecting all local authorities across the country and i very much commend the approach the community secretary is taking to bring together local councils and work out how we can help these families solve their problems and thus reduce a major impact on taxpayers as well. >> thank you mr. speaker. the governments welfare bill will plunge 200,000 extra children into poverty and children in places in liverpool are already suffering if the government wants to make the poor go away by redefining policies. does he really think he's going to get away with this? >> what i would say to the honorable lady is the introduction of universal credit is going to reduce the number of children living in poverty by around 250 pounds. those are the figures.

we face a clear choice. given benefits have gone up by 20% of the last five years compared with a 10% increase in wages we believe is right and welfare benefits shouldn't continue to go ahead up wages. i know from what labour has done this week voting against the bill saying it's completely wrong but completely refusing to reverse it. that is the complete policy vacuum we face from the party opposite. >> given the keen interest of the prime minister and the single markets will he willie look at mortgage lenders restricting legal work by a small number number of large firms and depriving local practices. [inaudible] >> i think he makes a very good by my honorable friend that i will look closely at this. we want to see competitive market in financial services and i think it's a major issue in our economy to get that mortgage market improving.

there are good signs that credit conditions are easing but we need to make sure they are easing for people are trying to buy their first home who don't have a big deposit and don't have a lot of help from the bank of mom and dad and we want to make sure we we are on their si. >> jack straw. >> thank you very much her. the prime minister justified these very large cuts in defense spending 5000 being sacked right now. he has to face difficult decisions on expenditures but those decisions were made in 2010. the security risks facing this country is now much worse and as he he is acknowledged in some of his -- given those threats including health isn't it an overwhelming case for looking again at the strategic defense review and ensuring they have the numbers needed to justified our defense?

>> i think the right honorable gentleman makes a serious point. the point about defense reviews is there there every five year so there'll be an option to look all over again. what i would say to them about the level of risk and then made this point in my statement to the house on monday is that the risks are changing. we still face the biggest risk from the afghanistan-pakistan area but the proportion of the risks we face from that area have declined. so we are able to use resources as we draw down in afghanistan to cope with the other risk we face. the overall point is absolutely that yes we are going to have a smaller regular army although the extra reserve will meet the overall level of our army changes but they will be better equipped for capable more mobile for capable of dealing with the modern threats that we face. >> thank you mr. speaker. i congratulate the prime minister on his speech this

morning. mr. speaker this prime minister has a history of going into battle while the party opposite has a reputation of going in and surrendering. there's a big difference between that site in this one. this i trust the people and the outside -- >> i think my honorable friend makes a very important point. frankly the british public has seen treaty after treaty introduced to this house from westminster to brussels. they have seen a huge change in the european union over the last 30 years and they see a big change taking place because of the eurozone and that is why i think it's right to resettle our relationship with europe and then to trust the people. >> recent revelations show serious abuse of powers

continues with the involvement of the security services. will the prime minister investigate the scandal that has ruined and continues to rent the rights of many hard-working men and women and their -- >> the honorable member quite rightly raises the issue that the opposition will be racing today and the debate and the blacklisting occurred as an onyx at the ballpark is. the previous government was all right to bring in a registration to make it unlawful. we have seen no evidence that the blacklisting regulations introduced enacted in their job in the company responsible shut down in 2009. let me say this. i do welcome the openness and frank is the opposition is using to look at something that went wrong while they were in office. >> thank you mr. speaker. my right honorable friend

insists on excellent principles including democracy. other member states want to go ahead with more integration and are demanding it. last year they ignored his veto and went ahead irrespective of the rules of the european union. will my right honorable friend tell us what will happen if by next spring they insist on going ahead with their own intended proposals and what would he do if it stops? >> first of all can i think my honorable friend for what he said. i believe what is going to happen is that the eurozone countries do need to make changes to to the european union and as i put in my speech this morning. they are changing the union to fix the currency. that is what the presence reporters about and it poses quite a wide-ranging treaty change. i think this frankly gives us the opportunity and the right to

argue that those countries not in the eurozone and frankly i believe are never going to john the eurozone that there are changes that we would like not just for ourselves but for a more open competitive and flexible europe. so there is going to be change in your. the eurozone countries do need to make changes but we should not back off from pushing forward our agenda as well. >> is the prime minister aware that there can be nothing more gruesome than to see him hanging out of austerity riddled britain to wine and dine at tableaux with 50 top bankers who helped to create the economic crisis? several millionaires --

if you want to see -- look at the company he keeps. >> i ran into the router of the opposition but we will leave that to the side. to be fair to the honorable gentleman when he sees the speech i'm going to be making a devil is which argues we need greater transparency and responsibility over the tax avoidance and tax evasion issues and greater transparency about companies and the land issue speaking about earlier. he may find some of the things i'm going to say that he might agree with. >> will the prime minister cut through the irrelevant arguments coming from the other side of the house and bring a simple message to the british people that if we have a conservative government in the next election they will have a referendum on europe. but don't have a conservative government we won't have -- >> my honorable friend makes a good point. i believe that's right to resettle our relationship with

europe to make it more open more competitive more flexible to make us feel more comfortable inside that union and to give the british people be in an end out referenda that they deserve or go. >> thank you mr. speaker. can the prime minister confirm that 3.4 million families would be worse off as a result of raising capital? why is he make them more difficult for these families? >> first of all i would say to the honorable lady this is not included in the cap. it's not related to people's income. it's actually related to people's needs. if you look at a whole that what we are doing with a payment over all the amount of money we are spending on disability is going up and not down. >> my right honorable friend's aspirations for the economic and political wisdom of our noble

friend is well-known. in light of his speech this morning would he consider inviting lord tussel time to conduct an inquiry into the consequences to the united kingdom to leave the european union? >> i always listen closely to what he says and i'm a huge fan of his plans for industrial strategy. on the issue of europe we haven't always agreed. he was a leading proponent of britain joining the single currency and i have always been opposed to that. on the issue of the referendum i checked i remind my right honorable friend the referendum was very much part of this manifesto. >> in the interest of harmony we will leave that to one side. >> mr. speaker a constituent of mine with a chronic medical condition tells me that he ps

20 pounds a week to spend on food and clothing after paying his utility bills and the welfare cuts in april he will have to pounds a day. is the prime minister believes we are all in it together will he is read to review the impact on the very poorest of the welfare cuts so my constituents sacrifices are in line with his own? >> i look closely up at the honorable gentleman says in the circumstances but let me just make the point. if you compare 2013 with 2010 in terms of the level of key benefits and unemployed person on jobseeking allowance is getting 325 pounds more this year than in 2010. a single mother of 420 pounds more so like elvis and tries to do week after week is paint a

picture that we have unfairly cut welfare and it's simply not true. >> thank you mr. speaker. inequalities in the country are damaging and recently the department of health announced a 5.5% increase in their allocations to local authorities for their public-health responsibilities in a tenth of that increase -- does the prime minister agree that these funds go a long ways to help long-term health inequality? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point. for many years public health budgets were rated in order to deal with issues and problems in the nhs. because we put in place an increase in the budget and these public-health budgets we are able to make sure that we tackle some of the real problems like diabetes and other issues that will put pressures on our health service in the long run.

>> thank you mr. speaker. which heard the houses heard the prime minister's looking forward to meeting people from national and international banks over the next few days. when will he visit a food tank? >> let me once again prays with with the food banks to in our country and let me point out to the honorable member that the use of food banks increased 10 times under the last labor government. >> will the prime minister join me in paying tribute to the athletes -- will the prime minister encourage people to register for other donations? >> i must certainly pay tribute to the many volunteers who made these games such as success and they did a fantastic job of hosting the games in these right to raise these issues. their tests missed the benefits of transportation i would

encourage people to do as he says. >> young people with the most complex special needs face being without -- next year because of government cuts from high needs funding. why should the most vulnerable young people in my constituency pay the price for his economic gain? >> let me make the point to the honorable lady that the reason we are having to make cuts is because of the mess left by your government. i would argue that when it comes to helping the disabled and helping the most vulnerable this government has always looked after them. >> europe is not to be saved by any single man and critically went on to predict that england was saved by her example. is my right honorable friend aware that his example today and

his exertion over the next four years about the possible chance of rescuing the european union -- >> can i think my honorable friend for what he said. he makes an important point which is the agenda that britain has is not an agenda of simply saying this is what britain wants to do. we will need an agenda that is good for the whole of the european union. we face a massive competitive challenge from the rising countries of the south and east. we have to accept europe at the moment isn't working properly and adding to business costs and regulation. we need to change that notches for our sake but across the european union.

>> what is the best training for a policeman? >> i've said it it before and al-zaida gimp go the best training you can get is a police officer understand what it's all about and i i will say that in the day i die. if you learn how to develop forces and use intelligence information. you learn how to leverage

relationships and that is the key. people in the community trust you. they will tell you when the things that are happening that are not get crime so you can intervene and they will tell you about how to go about doing it. i have learned from most of my career from those relationships. republican senator lamar alexander is an ranking the ranking member of the joint committee on -- he and minority leader detrich, form the senate floor talking about president obama's inaugural speech. this is about 40 minutes. >> president obama may have been vague on details in his inaugural speech on monday that i will give him this. he couldn't have been clearer about the tone and the direction

that he has in mind for the second term. gone is the post-partisan rhetoric that propelled him across the national stage and into the white house. he unabashedly bureaucratic control and centralized power here in washington. on monday we saw a president and a party that appear to have shifted in reverse and jammed on the gas. for democrats in the obama age, the era of big government being over is officially over. and anybody disagrees with their approach isn't just wrong. they are not just standing in the way of progress, that they are malevolent. there are the bad guys. they're the ones who want to take food away from children. they want the old and the infirm

to suffer. they want to choose between caring for the people who built this country and as the president put it on monday and investing in those who will build our future. i don't know if the president dies all this stuff. i don't know if he believes it's all in the caricatured. i certainly hope not. but one thing i do know is that questioning the intention of one's political opponents makes it hard to get anything done in a representative democracy or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. the president won the election. congratulated him on his victory. it's his prerogative to lay out an agenda and make an argument against all evidence of the efficacy of big government more

washington spending and centralization. it's even his prerogative to argue mistakenly in my view that america's greatness somehow rests not on its communities and voluntary associations, its churches and charities, on civil society but instead on the dictates of washington. but to suggest to those of us and those of our constituents who believe otherwise don't really want the best interest of our parents, or a children's or countries future is needlessly provocative. and worse it suggests the troubling inability to view those who don't happen to share your opinions as beneath you. to suggest is one of the president spokesman did earlier this week that both the american political system and those who belong to the party of lincoln aren't worthy of this white house or its agenda just isn't the way to get rings done.

it makes it impossible to attend to problems we simply have to face up to and it will only solve the government and frankly calls into questions the president's belief in the wisdom and efficacy of the constitutional system of checks and balances that the founders so wisely put in place. the post-inaugural period is usually a chance to pivot to governing after a long campaign. it's an opportunity for presidents to reach out to the minority and to forge compromises. but that is not what we are seeing this time around. even before monday we all notice the harsh tone in cheney -- change in tone and an olive branch of those who disagree than the president had decided to transform his campaign operation into a weapon to old

does anyone who doesn't share his vision. while i would suggest that one thing the american people don't want is a permanent campaign. that is the last thing the american people are looking for is a permanent campaign. they want us to work together on solutions to our problems and deficits and debt are right at the top of the list. so i would like to suggest this morning that the president rethink the adversarial tone he has adopted in recent weeks. our problems are simply too urgent and too big for the president to give up on working with us. i feel he doesn't want to work with us on the things we can achieve together. and let's start with the deficit and the debt. because the only way we would be able to tackle these problems is by doing it together. if he insists on spending the next four years pushing a

polarizing agenda instead i assure him he will meet a determined opposition not only from republicans in washington but from the very people he seems to believe are squarely on his side in the push to remake government in his image. the irony in the president's attacks of course are that the kind of reforms republicans are calling for her are the only conceivable route to saving the program the president claims he wants to protect. failing to reform the entitlement programs of the last century now, right now is the best way to guarantee they no longer exists in their current form. i mean you can practically hear the ring at the cash register with every new policy the president makes. at a time when we can all see the failure of such policies by simply turning on the news saying blissfully unaware of the fact that from athens to madrid

this sad slow death of the left's big government dream is on display for all to see. if we want a less prosperous less dynamic less mobile society that is the way to go. a europeanized america. the president's vision of an all-powerful government that rights every wrong heels every wound may warm the liberal heart but it's completely divorced from experience and from reality so today i would like to do my part to bring the president and his allies in congress over the lows are down-to-earth. i know it may be hard for them to accept in the reality is this. we have a spending problem. not a taxing problem, a spending problem. let's just take a look at the chart to my right. now madam president, the green

represents historic and projected tax revenue. you can see that it goes right straight across here out to 2040. the tax increases three weeks ago delivered the operation of law, in other words the law expired all of the bush tax cuts were over and the congress two hours after everybody's taxes went up, in other words all the bush tax cuts expired did it on a permanent basis to guarantee we wouldn't have another cliff like you have in admirably with a long sunset where you have a cliff. the president was able to get some new revenue the operation

of law and that represents the start line across here. you can see that is pretty studied out to 2040. now the president of course said that wasn't nearly enough. he said we need more taxes and we will back asking for more taxes later. so is nearly as we can tell based on what he has said the taxes he would like to add to the ones he got in the operation of law to a half weeks ago is this light line right across here. so if the president were given all the tax increases he says that the moment he wants that would provide this amount of revenue going out to 2040. as you can see madam president that doesn't do anything to solve the problem because they read here represents spending in

the past and the spending escalation that will occur if we don't do anything to solve the spending problem. look at this line. dramatically going up to 2040. so as you can see there is not enough revenue you can raise without completely shutting down the economy. and solve the problem. in fact it produces a static and totally insignificant amount of revenue in order to deal with the massive spending problem. so this constant demand for more and more tax increases on what i guess people say are the more successful guy down the street may be a great campaign tactic

doesn't do anything to solve the problems even if the president were able to get every bit of taxes he wanted. you still have an enormous gap in spending if you don't deal with the real problem which is spending. we have a spending addiction. i didn't make this up. this is a fact. this is reality. so, the tash -- -- the tax issue is over. congress has restored permanent tax relief for 99% of the american people. even if the president were to get, and he will not, any more tax revenue is perfectly obvious that doesn't do anything to solve the problem. so, the challenge for us and

looking at the chart you can see revenue today is just about where it has been for the past 30 years or so. the president spent nearly his entire first term arguing that we need a tax -- to tax the so-called rich to solve our fiscal woes. he harangued congress about it and argued for it and rallies in debates and in and the operation of law he got part of what he asked for and the reason as i said earlier he got it is because the tax relief we had in 2001 in and 2003 carried an expiration date. president obama got some of the tax increases he wanted because the law expired.

and then congress led by republicans voted to make bush era tax rates permanent for 99% of all. permanency is the important thing but the importance is you don't have another cliff another expiration date were all of a sudden everything changes. given how much time he devoted to that one topic you think his tax that would have closed the deficit. eliminated the entire national debt. but you see that tiny little blue line that i pointed to write here. that is how much additional revenue he got. this blue area is the revenue he says he wants. he won't get it but if he did it's pretty apparent that has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the spending addiction.

so, if this revenue doesn't come anywhere close to solving the problem the real challenge obviously is how we are going to control all of this red. what do we do about this? well we are clearly spending way more than we take in. the real uptick interestingly enough occurs about the time the president took office. it has been hard enough to close, to find ways to close the president's trillion dollar deficit. but as i pointed out they are nothing next to what is going to hit us when tens of millions of

baby boomers reach retirement age. nothing compared to what is heading our way. i pointed out the massive slope. that is what is headed our way. nothing short of a bipartisan effort is going to fix this problem and there is only one way he can do it. you can't tax your way out of this problem. the revenue question is behind us. the lovely voted for mixed current tax rates permanent. i'm pretty confident there is not a single republican vote in the house or senate. but even if we were, all the taxes the president asked for would only put us here in 2040

and look at what we would be spending. so the reality the president needs to face and quickly is that there's no realistic way to raise taxes high enough to even begin to address this problem. that is why republicans are saying we need to start controlling spending and we need to do it now. and that is why if the president must do something good right now he should put aside the liberal wish list and put aside the character attacks and join us in this great task. it is the transcendent issue of our time. if we don't fix this problem we don't leave behind for her children and grandchildren the kind of america that are of grandparents left wrist. there is no bigger issue.

even though it's not mentioned in his state of the union. i have no animus toward the president. i just want to see him do something about the problem. because the longer we wait the worse the problem becomes. the more we delayed the inevitable the last time younger americans will have to plan for the reforms they make today. and that is simply not right. so the president has a choice. he can paint himself as a warrior of the left charge into battle with failed ideas we have already tried before. he can demean and blame the opposition for his own failure to lead. he can indulge in a bitter never-ending never-ending campaign that we'll might divide our country further, or he can take the responsible road.

he can help his own base come to terms with the mathematical reality. some people they there are living in a fantasy world. the world which doesn't exists. he could reach out to leaders in both parties and all of the members in both parties and negotiate in good faith. we would be happy to give him the credit. if listing his legacy with is what it takes and helps the country that's all the better. if my constituents feel like they are working to help make their future a little better and a little brighter, grades. but we can't waste any more time. denying the reality that is staring each of us in the face.

there is only one way to solve this problem and that is to do something about this spending it did -- addiction. it's going to sink this country. and turn us into greece. senate republicans are ready to help the president solved this problem and i hope we have an opportunity to do so. i yield the floor. >> madam president? >> the senator from tennessee. >> i wonder if i might post pose a question to the republican leader if he would retake the floor. >> i would be happy to respond. >> i want to congratulate the republican leader for her his remarks but here is my question. we have arrived at a time when we have the newly-elected president who has had a fine inaccurate day. he has an agenda that he wants

to follow which he announced in his inaugural address. it's not agenda that most of us on the side i'll agree us but he has an agenda he wants to follow with a second term all of which would ensure his legacy as the president. but isn't there one thing that in order to get that agenda or any other thing he and we have to do and that is to address that and isn't the best time to do something difficult, something nobody wants to talk about, something that's hard and the best time to do that is a time when we have a divided government a democratic president and republican house and 30 or 40 or 50 senators on on both sides who have been saying for two years that we are ready to fix fix it that? is this an opportunity now imagine because it's divided government because the house of representatives may create a two or three month window during leach we could address all of these issues if we had

presidential leadership. >> i would say to my friend it's counterintuitive but one could argue that divided government which we have had more often than not as world war ii has produced four of the most significant accomplishments for our country in modern times. in the reagan administration president reagan and tip o'neill the democratic speaker of the house agreed to raise the age for social security and save social security for another generation. reagan and tip o'neill did the last conference of tax reform. bill clinton and and the republican congress did welfare reform arguably the most important piece of social legislation in recent times and build clinton and the republican congress actually balance the budget and late nineties. my friend from tennessee is entirely correct. divided government is actually the perfect time. some would argue even the only

time you can do tough things, hard to explain things that need to be done to save the country. and so i hate to miss the opportunity presented by divided government. to tackle the transcendent issue of our time. the president talked about a lot of things and that is all interesting. it had nothing to do with fixing the country. until we fix this problem we won't have the kind of country for children and grandchildren that our parents left behind for us. >> madam president i wonder if i might post one more question to the republican leader after making a short statement. i came to this body as a young lawyer legislative aide to senator howard baker long time ago in 1967 and i remember very well senator baker's story about

how the civil rights bill of 1968 was passed. i have discussed this with the republican leader before. he knows that era as well or better than i do but there was a time when senator baker said he was centered since office the man who had the job as senator mcconnell now has, he was a republican leader then and he said he heard the telephone rang and there was more than one into the conversation but senator dirksen was saying no mr. present i cannot come down and have an drink with you. i did that last night and -- is very unhappy with me. that was a conversation but 30 minutes later there was a rustle in the outer office in the republican leader's office the very office that senator mcconnell now holds and two beagles followed by the present united states came in and lyndon johnson the presence of their puppy and leader if you want have a drink with me i am down here to have one with you and they disappeared into the

backroom for 45 minutes. the point of all that is not their socializing. the point was it was then that republican leaders office in 1968 the next or that the civil rights bill was written and enacted and lyndon johnson got the credit for that in history. edward dirksen made it possible and there were that time many more democrats in the senate than republicans. so what i am saying -- what i want to say to senator mc connell to republican for republican leader and the question would ask him, he has seen the united states senate and the presidency for a number of years. he has seen many relationships between presidents and leaders of the opposite party. he knows how this place works. my sense of the republican leader and of the large majority of us is that we would like to see a results. we would like to see a result on this very tough issue of saving social security and saving

medicare, saving medicaid, saving these programs that seniors depend on. and i wonder if the republican leader would agree with me that despite the fact that we in guage every day in political matters and that we have the differences of opinions that on this issue, without presidential leadership, we can't get a result and that there are a lot of us on both sides of the aisle who work with the president to fix the debt. >> i would say to my friend from tennessee, in many ways it's a statement of the audience -- obvious. there's only one person in america out of 307 lane americans who can find something into law. and only one person in america can deliver the members of his party to support an agreement that he makes. the only way to get an outcome

on the biggest issue of our time is with presidential leadership. so it's disappointing to see scant reference in the state of the union. of course that is just one speech and i haven't given up hoping that this president, this president can make solving the transcendent issue of our time one of his premier accomplishments. the point i think the senator from tennessee and i are making this morning is there are potential partners on this side of the aisle. to make this happen. and i hope that we will not lose this opportunity once again to deal with the biggest issue in the country. >> madam president?

see the senator from tennessee. >> i thank the senator from kentucky for extending his time on the floor and on my own i would like to continue that line of thinking just a little bit. it's traditional that when we have a new president and a newly inaugurate it president that he has a pretty good opportunity to get what he asks, that is the time of maximum leverage. is a time to do important things. is a time to do difficult things. at the time to do things that otherwise might not get done. presidents are defined by their skills, their communication skills, their electoral ability but they are also defined by the capacity of dry period of years to identify the hard issues that are important to our country and

cause people as the president said in his address yesterday to work together or the day before -- to work to solve those problems. now the problem is where the want to raise taxes on the guy down the street with the biggest house. that is not so hard to do. the problem is to spend money that you don't have because you can do it. that's not so hard to do. if the problem is to address a disaster to help people who are in desperate shape there might be some debate debate about whether his really disasters or not but it's not going to be archduke because in the end it's going to happen. what presidents are remembered for his dealing with important difficult crises. president clinton is remembered for a number of things but one of the things is that he challenged the conventional thinking his own party to deal with welfare reform. this wouldn't have happened if

he hadn't done it. it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't done it. because a republican couldn't have made the argument. at present job according to the former press secretary to lyndon johnson is three things. one is to see an urgent need. is to develop a strategy to meet the need in the 30s to to persuade half the people that he is right. president nixon in the early 70's went to china. that seems like ancient history but that was straight against the core of the republican party at that time. that was something that was inconceivable for a republican president to do given the history of mainland china and taiwan as they were both called. so there have been many times in our history when presidents have had to do the hard work. president george h. w. bush made

a budget agreement for which he may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans. but it also help don't the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990s when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. i sense that there is that the white house is feeling, two things. the first is that the budget problem is not a real problem and i can't believe people at the white house think that. everybody knows it is. mcconnell -- senator mcconnell gave a good explanation of what was going on there but let me say this way. in 2025 according to the congressional budget office every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare and dedicated social security and interest on the debt and there is nothing left for national

defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways and every other thing the investments we need to make in research to grow this country. it all goes for medicare and medicaid social security and every single penny we collect and that's only 12 years the way that is not me talking. that is the congressional budget office saying that but medicare trustees have told us the medicare trustees have said that in 12 years the medicare program won't have enough money to pay its bills. now whose bills? bills that seniors. those of tennesseans who many are literally counting the days until they are old enough to be eligible for medicare so they can have some way to pay their medical bills. it would be a tragedy if that day arrived and there wasn't enough money to pay the bills. but the medicare trustees who by

law are supposed to know these things say that they will come in 2024. it's just 12 years the way. that is for people already in medicare and people who are going to be on medicare. medicaid which is a program for lower income americans. it's an important program. as governor i dealt with it in my state but when i was governor was a% of the state budget and today it's 26% of the state budget. it is holding up every dollar for almost every dollar that would go to higher education. as a result since found the country are wondering where my tuition fees going up? is because of washington's medicaid program, requiring states to make decisions that soak up money that otherwise would go for colleges and universities. in our state of tennessee 30 years ago the state paid 70% of

the costs going to the university of tennessee. today at page 30 and medicaid is the chief culprit. now everyone knows this. the president's own debt convention has told him this and suggested a way to deal with it. 40 or 50 of us on both sides of the aisle have been working together and having dinner together and writing bills together trying to come up with plans to do it or go senator corker my colleague from tennessee has developed a bill which i'm his prime co-sponsor which says over the next 10 years we have found a way to strengthen medicare and other entitlements by reducing the growth in spending. we understand this. we passed a budget control act a couple of years ago and people said they didn't like it. it wasn't so bad because it took 39% of the budget which is all of our discretionary spending. this is national defense national parks national labs.

is going up about the rate of inflation and this is before we get to the so-called sequester. but what about the rest of the budget? that is the automatic stuff we don't even vote on, medicare going up three or four times the rate of inflation. it's going to bankrupt the program's and seniors won't have their medical bills paid in the country will be bankrupt. that is no overstatement. former comptroller of currency says that. president clinton has said this is an urgent problem. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says it's our number one national defense issue so why are we dealing with that? i think we are not dealing with it is it's hard to do. because on both sides of that we have not been effective in dealing with it before. i don't remember when we had an all republican cast of characters here in town. president bush republican majority and 55 of those we try to reduce the growth of medicare over five years from 54% to 51%

and couldn't do it. no one is cutting anything. we are saying we are we are going to reduce the growth of medicare spending from 44% to 41% over five years and we couldn't get the votes to do that. ..

they were waiting for me to do it. they were waiting for the governor to do it. that's our system works. so i wonder if the president thinks it's not a problem. i can't imagine anyone thinks that. this is a problem the president does not address and i'll be remembered in history as failing to do that. his legacy may be a failure to address financial matters that put this country on a road to bankruptcy. or if he were to do this, provide the leadership, he would be a cs trillion foreign minister said, one budget agreement away from the city needs global preeminence. but when president obama want to be known as the president who caused america to reassert its preeminent they join with the

budget agreement in the first three months of his second term and then get on to his agenda about which we can argue. but we have to do this. that leaves me with one thought. you must think we don't want to do it. what we do want to do it and it's a misunderstanding if he thinks that. another republican leader wouldn't mind me saying it's a widely clever tactician who knows the senate as well as anyone here. but if you look carefully when we got down to the last two days of the year and needed an agreement on taxes, republican leaders in the middle of the agreement. when we got to the end of last summer and needed an agreement to avoid the fall, the republican leader was in the middle of doing not. and he was before that. if the white house thinks the

republican leader are we on the republican side do not want to fix the bad, they're badly misunderstanding where we are and who we are. i don't know how we can say it more clearly. we've written those that do it. we have held dinners to talk about it. we have made public statements that democrat, 30 or 40 at times saying we support sub tab or this or that. what's missing? two words, presidential leadership. it just doesn't work unless the president lays out his plan. some say the president does not want to lay out his plan. he's the president. urges legislators. senator corker and i put out our plan. he pays attention to that?

jillion dollars increase in the debt ceiling is out there. with president obama with his skills, if he calls together side tad and says here's my plan to save medicare. here's a plan to save medicaid. here's my plan to fix the debt. i want bipartisan support to do that. at first because it's a difficult issue, everybody will say we can't do it that way and then we'll sit down and talk and come up with the result. i think the republican leader has shown he is prepared and willing to do that. he sat there, done it on other issues. i don't allow us the rest of us can do to show that. so what i'm trying to respectfully say today is much if anything to the president of the united states is congratulations on your inauguration. i was there prior to participate for a chance to stay for a minute and a half where we

celebrate for the 57th time the inauguration of an american president. we celebrate because our country is distinguished from most other countries in the world a peaceful transition or reaffirmation. we have our political contest and the restraint to respect the results. having won the election, it's important to get the fiscal house in order. the time to do it is where we have divided government. the time to do it is all the president at the peak of his popularity. a time to do it is for the house of representatives, republican house has created a window of two or three months to do with fiscal issues. the time to do it is after two years of discussion of republicans and democrats in a bipartisan way about the need to fix the.and the importance of it for the country.

so my hope is this the president and his advisors look at the united states senate, d.c. number one, a willingness to solve the problem of fixing the data in a bipartisan way. i get the feeling they don't believe that about us. i don't know what else we can do to cause them to believe that. there's not the same kind of comfortable relationship back and forth that there should be. i've heard some people say well, the johnson derksen days was inching his jury. that is ancient history. madam president, human nature doesn't change. not in 50 years, not 100 years, not 500 years. there's plenty of good will here the isle, on the side of the aisle at the beginning of this term to work with a newly enough to reprint that to say we're

ready to fix the data. provide the leadership. no great crisis as ever result of presidential leadership in your the president. you're the only one who can layout the plan. and we'll consider it, amend it, argue, change it passé. but now we can get onto the president's agenda about what should have a difference of opinion. but he'll go down in history as the man who is willing to do something hard within his own party, which was to fix the debt come to see programs for seniors depend upon to pay their medical bills. so i hope i can say that in the spirit of someone who participated in the inauguration and it matters the considerable abilities. i hope he and his ricers take another look and say maybe we were wrong. maybe were the only ones who can do it, so let's make a proposal

and let's get started. i think the president. i yield the floor.

>> it's hard to realize now, 25 years after apollo soyuz but the climate was like back then. and in a way, after the stalin years and crochet fears and khrushchev pounding the lectern with issue and not that sort of thing, the soviets were very foreign to us after some of the things that have been, why we thought they were pretty aggressive people. i won't say monsters, but they probably thought we were monsters. so we very quickly broke through that because when you deal with people in the same line of work as you are, you're around them for a short time while you

discover human beings. >> house armed services meetings allegations those sexual misconduct at lackland air force base. general marquardt says the problem has become a cancer for the service, the committee to conduct in the ranks. the three-hour hearing includesl testimony from the defense of sexual abuse. >> good morning. thank you for joining us for the 113th congress. it's appropriate to begin our rt oversight but that this subject

the committee has been vigilant for many years. at the same time, i find it extremely disturbing that the department of defense, military services and the dedicated groups who advocate on the parti of the room for this heinousa proble crime, sexual assault and sexual misconduct remains a problem within our armed forces. w today we meet to receive testimony on misconduct by instructors at lackland air lacr force base. the most recent example example of sexual assaults that have plagued the military for far too long. this tragedy with 32 instructors have been found guilty have been charged with or are still being investigated for crimes against 59 trainees begs the question, how could this have happened? how could the system and in particular the leadership that failed to protect the men and women who serve our nation from sexual predators who also wear the uniform?

while i applaud the air force for pursuing in-depth investigations to find answers to these questions i am particularly disturbed to learn that there are was significant delay reporting the allegations to the proper authorities when they first came to light. equally troubling is that no action was taken by local leadership when the reporting delay was uncovered. this to me is unacceptable. i look forward to hearing from general walsh in general rice have the air force has addressed these issues to eliminate the possibility that sexual misconduct goes undetected in the future. make no mistake, congress shares the responsibility for preventing sexual assault in the military and assuring victims that their cases will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. over the past five years republicans and democrats have joined forces to put real reforms in place. we have ensured that victims of sexual assault are taken

seriously provided medical care and support, and the cases are investigated and prosecuted. last year congress passed reforms on how the military tracks sexual assaults in order to paint a reliable picture of just how big the problem is. we also established a commission to take a critical look at the uniform code of military justice and make recommendations for reform to make certain that the military justice system can successfully prosecute sexual assault. however legislation is not the only answer or go commanders at every level and in every service must make eliminating sexual assault and all forms of sexual misconduct in their commands the highest of priorities. senior leaders at all levels must hold commanders accountable for aggressively pursuing allegations of sexual misconduct. we will accept nothing less. i understand that the air force has already made several changes

to improve the safety and effectiveness of basic training. i would like to hear from our second panel if the reforms and safeguards recently put in place are sufficient. i have no doubt that there is more to be done. my visit to lackland in september renewed my belief that the young men and women who volunteer to join our armed forces are the finest in the nation. these young men and women have earned the respect of the nation. they deserve the respect from their leaders and fellow servicemembers. before i ask ranking member smith for his opening remarks i would like to remind their members that at the same time as we hold this hearing, the air force continues to prosecute the remaining cases at lackland. and military perpetrators of sexual assault are tried by court-martial, public statements by military and civilian leaders especially senior leaders about the guilt or innocence of alleged perpetrators can be perceived as or even -- there

may be undue command influence on the outcome of the trial. that means public testimony by lackland could be used as grounds for a mistrial by defense attorneys. this is an outcome anyone wants. to that and i will give latitude to general welch in general rice answer questions to the extent that it will not prejudice ongoing criminal prosecutions. we are all committed to eradicating sexual assault in our armed forces but first we have to respect the victims need for urgent and ensured justice. mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman and i concur with all of your remarks and i thank you for that statement. i do have a statement which i will submit for the record to just summarize briefly here. i think general welch and general rice for being here and the leadership that they have shown on this issue and this very serious problem and being able to protect the men and women who serve in our military is job one. if there is not trust and of the

people or serving do not trust the people who are supposed to be leading them than the entire system breaks down and sexual assault and sexual violence is a major problem throughout the military. i think that's one big point to keep in mind throughout this hearing. this is not just lack an. one. certainly this is an extreme example and one that i hope we can learn from and one that continues to need to be resolved. the cases need to be prosecuted and we need to get to the bottom of exactly what happened that this is a problem that has plagued the military for far too long and we on this committee and throughout the military needs to be addressed in order to make sure military can function as the ability we all expected to. i think the chairman for having his hearing. i do want to thank general welsh and general rice and secretary panetta and others and we have had many meetings the last couple of years. is apparent to me the department of defense takes this issue very seriously and is now trying to do their best to figure out what

went wrong and how to fix fix i. is completely unacceptable that we have gotten to this point but at least now we are seeing the seriousness from the department of defense that i think is warranted. i also want to thank -- there too many members on this committee to thank who have taken a role in this issue and try to make sure we put the best legislation in place to make the changes necessary to protect our men and women from this type of assault and violence. i thank them for that leadership as well but going forward the critical thing is to make sure that we do much much better than we have done now, to learn what are the changes that are going to be done within the department of defense and legislation to do a better job for protecting our men and women. at the end of the day the culture needs to change. i've heard i have heard a number of members talk about this. basically when it gets to the point where if you are serving in the military you know that you are dependent on protecting

the men and women and being out fronted protect the victims and make it clear throughout your command of this is completely unacceptable behavior that will be punished, one everybody serving in the military knows that is one the primary things that they are going to be judged on for advancements, when that cultural changes made in that family point at which i believe we will again to seriously address this issue. i hope we can learn more from this hearing today and how we get to that point and again i think the chairman and i i think the generals for being here this morning. i look forward to your testimony and the members questions. >> thank you very much. at this time without objection i ask unanimous consent that an additional statement from the senator's -- center for military readiness be included in this hearing. without objection so ordered. i want to call mr. smith's comments about general welch and general rice. they have been most helpful and those who have conducted the

investigation, i could not -- for the seriousness they have taken this in the leadership they have brought to this issue. at this time now i understand we may have votes at any time so what i would like to do in the interest of trying to make sure that we have time to properly conduct this hearing, if we just have one vote on the rule we will not rake and we will ask the members to go vote and keep moving so that we can expedite this. we will hear from general welsh and by the time up between him and general rice. general welch. >> thank you chairman mckee and ranking member member smith and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. this topic is obviously a tough one but we don't have to endure

the subject to appreciate the subject of being before this committee. thank you for the opportunity. general rice and i are truly honored to be here. mr. chairman with your permission i would like to start by having general rice give you an update on the incident allocations and activities conducted for basic military training investigations at lackland and i will follow that with a few servicewide things we are doing to try to follow up on activities to learn from it and do everything we can to ensure it never happens again. >> certainly. >> thank you. chairman mckee and ranking member smith and distinguished members of the house armed services committee thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the air forces investigation into sexual misconduct by basic military training instructors at our basic military training complex as joint base san antonio-lackland in san antonio, texas. over the past nine months we have conducted a very deliberate and comprehensive investigation.

over 550 investigators have been involved. they have conducted over 7700 interviews. we have surveyed every basic military training graduate for the last 10 years for whom we have contact information. although we have conducted a 10 year look back, the vast majority of the allegations are alleged misconduct that occurred over the past three years. during this three-year period, 855 airmen have been assigned to military training instructor duty. of this group of 855 instructors, we have completed disciplinary action for sexual misconduct against aids. we have preferred court-martial charges against another nine and 15 other instructors are under investigation. the allegations against these instructors range from sexual

assault to the inappropriate contact with students after they graduated from basic military training and were no longer under the authority of van struck there's. at this point, 24 of the military training instructors are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. we have identified 59 victims of this criminal activity or misconduct. regardless of whether a victim or alleged victim was the victim of a sexual assault, the recipient of an inappropriate e-mail or willingly participated in an unprofessional relationship with an instructor in violation of established policy, we have offered each of them the full range of available victim support services and no victim or alleged victim has been charged with a policy violation or otherwise held accountable as part of this investigative process.

the 32 instructors who have been disciplined or who are under investigation represent less than 4% of the instructors who have served in basic military training over the past year, three years and i believe it is important to underscore that the vast majority of our there's served with distinction in a very demanding duty assignment. that said, it is completely unacceptable to us that so many of our instructors have committed crimes or violated our policies and we clearly failed in our responsibility to maintain good order and discipline among too many of our instructors in basic military training. among the most important and fundamental responsibilities of come and is the requirement to maintain good order and discipline among the members of the military organization.

this responsibility cannot be delegated. all of the changes we are making in basic military training are directed in one way or another in helping our commanders discharge its fundamental responsibility. although it is still very early, the evidence indicates that our efforts are making a difference. we have not had a reported incident of sexual misconduct in basic military training for the past seven months. this is not to say that we believe we are nearing the end of our work. on the contrary. we know this is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning of a journey that can never and. the key to success over the next weeks and months and years is to sustain the intense level of

focus we have devoted to this issue over the past nine months. to this end, i believe the most significant action we are taking to address this critical issue is the establishment of the recruiting, education and training oversight counsel. this counsel will include the senior leadership of my command and it will one, review the progress and effectiveness of the actions we are not implementing. two, provide an expanded perspective on future actions we will take to prevent problems from recurring. and three, advise me on strategic issues affecting airmen safety and the maidens of good order and discipline in basic military training. in short, this counsel will help us institutionalize the intense levels of locus we must sustain if we are to successfully defeat

the threat of sexual misconduct and the basic military training environment. i look forward to your questions after general welsh's remarks. thank you. >> thank you and i completely agreed the investigations don't marked the end of anything. the air force has recommitted itself to free insuring every airmen is treated with respect. it's not a one time fix. it has to be a way of life. this collection of events in basic military training has been stunning to most of us in the air force. there's simply no excuse for it. there's no justifiable explanation and there is no way they can allow this to happen again. here for school for sexual assault is not some week -- lower the number. the goal is zero. the impact on everything from their families, their friends and the other people in their unit is heartwrenching. attacking his cancer is a full-time job and we are giving it our full attention.

of general maggie woodward's recommendations presented to general rice at the end of her investigation 23 are fully implemented and 22 will be implemented by november of this year and the final recommendation has been separated from this particular activity. it has to do with shortening the length of basic military training as general rice is considering that under us separate review that started in a way. sonny's admonitions of applicability for the entire air force and we are working on the larger for sexual assault response and prevention program and her leadership training at every level and into investigative and legal process. since becoming chief of staff i've worked hard to express my deep concern with the issue of sexual assault and i am sure -- i shared my thoughts with. i've also shared it with every commander in our air force. they understand especially her senior commanders understand as ed rice and i do that the american people trust us with

their greatest treasure their sons and daughters. they expect us to lead them with honor to value each of them and to treat them as if they were our own. we do not have a greater responsibility than that. every year for supervisor at every air force commander must be actively engaged in this effort. if they don't actively engage i consider it part of the problem. i met with a four-star general who knew exactly how i felt about the subject. not surprisingly they'll feel the same. ejected all 164 for air force wing commanders to come to washington d.c. in december excuse me late me late november so i could discuss this issue with them face-to-face. there's simply no room for misunderstanding as we move forward from here. secretary donnelly proved in air force wide help and welfare inspection during the first two weeks in december. the intent was to ensure we provide every airmen a work environment that allows them to excel and ensure each of them feels valued and is treated with

respect. the detailed results of this inspection are available to your staff. finally a couple of weeks ago in my monthly letter to airmen iran force the fact that obscene and vulgar or disrespect limit just songs or so-called traditions are not part of our -- and will not be accepted as part of our culture. of these things may or may not directly relate to sexual assault they certainly do create environment more conducive to sexual harassment in a professional relations and i personally agree that both of those are leaving addict indicators for sexual assault. we have worked hard to ensure we are lined with policy initiatives from the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we have also worked with the office of the secretary of secretary of defense to create special victims teams comprised of investigators and attorneys who have received specialized training in sexual assault cases. that effort has been encouraged and supported by members of this committee and i thank you for that.

dikötter 24 special investigators have finished training and 60 air force attorneys have been identified and trained to serve the special victims council providing counsel providing conference and compassionate legal assistance to victims. that program goes fully into attack on the 28th of january but in fact we have are designed seven special victims counsel to victims around the air force. we continue to employ over 3100 volunteer of victim advocates and in accordance with the fy12 event -- defensively are placing fully accredited victim advocate at every installation by october 1 of this year. mr. chairman there are many other things we are attacking are doing to deal with this problem and i would be happy to discuss it during the question-and-answer period but in closing let me say i will never stop attacking this problem. we will never slow down our efforts to ensure victims receive the best is capable and most thoughtful care and advice possible until we can eliminate the problem and i promise every member of this committee that

the united states air force leadership team will never quit working to eliminate this horrible crime from the ranks of our air force. thank you committee members for the help you have party given us in the separate and for the time standing here today. general rice and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. i was just informed that we do have the vote in there will be three boats that we will have to recess and return as quickly as we can after the votes. general welsh during your confirmation hearing you testify that everyone in air force is trying to do the right thing and figure out some way of stopping sexual assault. i don't think this is only at lackland and i don't think it's only in the air force. i don't think it's only in the military. i think it's a societal problem that we cannot fix, a societal

problem we can address this you were the air force problem and i know in talking to general dempsey and the other chiefs, they are also looking at all of the branches of the military. how are you acknowledged that what was being done at that time was not adequate to reverse the trend? what are your thoughts on how the air force can reverse the trend? do you have some specific examples other than what you have mentioned already that still need to be done? >> mr. chairman i think there are a lot of things that can be done and we need to be doing them from now until the air force quits being an institution. the biggest thing is committing to dealing with people on an individual level every day by every supervisor and commander. i don't think institutional directives will solve the problem. i think caring more for every airmen would solve the problem. we have tried a number programs

and another training activities and educational initiatives while some have been successful and maybe hoping the problem we are certainly not reversing the trend in a dramatic way. so i believe we need to keep looking for new and different ways to approach the problem. as we find things to work we should expand on them and continue to exploit them. the special victims counsel i believe is a good example. if we can get the 30 \{#g}{^}%\percent or so of the victims who initially report is unrestricted and allow us to begin our investigation we would then step away because of concerns about a number of things. i won't go into all the details and you know the reason they decide not to participate in the prosecution but some of those are related to the way we conduct an investigation and it dies the victims the way we make them feel as they go through the followed victim care and preparation for trial. we have to eliminate those things and keep those victims engage in the process of finding

prosecuting in removing the perpetrators as if we don't there will be additional victims. i believe they are predators that commit this crime. i don't believe everyone who commits sexual assault is a predator but there are predators and we have to find them hopefully screen them out early to develop tools to allow us to do that. if not we have to find them through indications through the people around them who know them and if they do commit a crime we have to stop them after the first one. and not allow them to continue. we also have to work hard to identify those activities that lead to bad behavior and there are a number of them hoot deal with our children all the time. are younger airmen are no different. they are involved in the same social circles into the same kind that goodies and they are the same indicators. a young man who binge binge drinks or looses control himself is going to conduct bad behavior. that bad behavior could result in sexual assault. let's stop the binge drinking

and identify the hate. that takes a clear understanding of the issue at every level of her air force starting with the youngest airmen and officers and a require supervisors and commanders who have never quit engaging. i think that is the key mr. chairman. >> the command directed investigation initiated iu general rice found that the manning levels at lackland did not support optimum oversight during basic training. the report recommends increasing mti manning. given that the air force is drawn down military personnel and is facing continued reduced potential of sequestration, how would you feel these extra mti requirements? >> thank you mr. chairman. as i reported my response to the command directed investigation to the chief and secretary of the air force and talked about some of the resource requirements that would be

necessary in order for us to implement fully the recommendation i am happy to say that resources were not an constrained in terms of my ability to address the issues. i ask for more mpi military training instructors and they have been authorized. we are in the process of hiring them and training them. in the meantime, we have effectively achieved the impact of having to military training instructors assigned to each flight which is the end state that they want to get to by both bringing in temporary instructors and temporary duty status and rearranging some of the staff positions and put them on a line if you will to perform military training instructor duty because we thought that was important to do now and not wait for the assignment and personnel process in the training process quite frankly to catch up.

so we are -- have been authorized these additional provisions by the air force. quite frankly the long pole of the tent is their ability to effectively train enough instructors. we are in the process of doing that now but that will take a little bit of time for us to complete. in the meantime, i'm satisfied that we have been able to achieve the effect through other mechanisms. thank you. >> thank you. the investigation director by major general leonard packed her into the training wings response into the misconduct found that there were significant delay in reporting by senior mti's. the investigation also revealed that when the commander learned of the delay no corrective action was taken. what actions have you taken to address these failures and to raise awareness among the air force leaders of the importance of aggressively pursuing reports of misconduct?

>> thank you mr. chairman. in this specific instance i believe you are referring to this command directed investigation. i directed a separate investigation into the delayed reporting and finds there was culpability among members of the supervisory chain in terms of informing the commander in a timely manner of an issue that the commander should have been aware of and i have held people accountable for that delay in the reporting. i did find in that instance and the commander took appropriate action initially but there were other instances that were identified in the command directed investigation and other areas that we have discovered through other means. where i was not satisfied with the actions that commanders and other leaders took in response to a reported misconduct. we have addressed that in a number of different ways. to and include putting in place mandatory reporting requirements

such that any incident of misconduct or maltreatment must immediately be reported up the chain of command not just to the squadron commander but to the wing commander in up to the two-star commander who has overall responsibility for training within the air force. if it involves sexual misconduct the report must occur within 24 hours and the alleged offender is removed immediately from the position of either the staff position or the instructor position until we have had enough time to sort through the details of what went on and ensure it goes to an investigation fully or place that instructor back into the duty position. so partly we have handled it through this idea of having mandatory reporting procedures that allow us to ensure that the proper information is

transmitted to the proper people at the right time in order to deal with this. i would say is secondary in the second order way that we have dealt with this has to do with the level of seniority and experience that we have placed now in the basic military training environments such that we have more senior experience to season leaders and supervisors making decisions about what constitutes infraction and what doesn't and what should be done about it. this is not an environment where we want to test or determine whether someone is a good leader, whether someone in his head supervisory experience. is a place where we bring get -- people who have demonstrated strong leadership and strong ability to supervise and a strong history of making good decisions. part of what you have seen in the changes we have made is to

ensure we get more experienced and seasoned leaders into these positions so that when they get that information they can make better decisions. thank you. >> thank you. after ranking member smiths questions we will recess. mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate it. a couple of quick questions. one of the difficulties is how do you measure success going forward? is difficult to cuss on the one hand you could say well we have fewer sexual assaults but you also don't want people to be not reporting. as you look at are you making progress here is the broader issue. what are you looking for to figure out whether or not you are moving forward and making progress to get to the point where you eliminate sexual assault within the air force? >> one of the things or i think we need to do is establish and maintain a clear baseline of

information. in 2000 we conducted a gallup survey that gave us numbers on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault and reporting within the air force. we are in the process of contracting of follow up survey in the 2013th survey to follow up on the initial baseline to see which direction we happen to be moving. as are reporting increasing and if so why? are the types of incidents and number of incidents changing? is the demographics of the victim changing? all of those things i think are critical to baseline or ferdon figure out what is working and what isn't working. they think the other thing that's not something we can grab ahold of and show you is the feedback we get from people within the air force. we have made a huge effort recently to start getting into a discussion at the small unit level of respect and treating each other with respect. the feedback we are getting from that effort is interesting because it's clear we haven't done enough in this area.

people don't feel valued and that we have a certain population of air force that has been going along to get along by ignoring things that they are comfortable with in their workplace or work environments for the people who work around them whether it's mannerisms, for language, pictures hanging on the wall or whatever it might be. >> sorry to interrupt but you have to talk about what is it that is making them feel intimidated? it may surprise higher-ups what it is an understanding these and i appreciate you making that point. >> i think that is where it starts. the other thing we need to do is identified the numbers in a clear way so we can have an unemotional, logical discussion about a very emotional topic. when it comes to how are we doing in executions and convictions etc. and what are the tools we can use to get better? we have major disconnects between the numbers we use in

the department and department of air force are numbers versus if you look at prosecutors numbers on the outside. i don't think the numbers are that far apart in my personal opinion. at based on the fact that i took the air force numbers and asked our judge advocate to use the methodology to compute our percentages for convictions and prosecutions etc.. internally when we did that we would within a percentage point of the main data that they have been what we have done to follow this to take that and i've asked to sit with their representatives and together put these numbers together so we can share with you what the numbers are relative to something that's considered a standard or a baseline in the nonmilitary world. just so we can determine where the problems really exists. we spend a lot of time focused on numbers and if the numbers are not consistent and we are not talking apples-to-apples it's hard to figure out where you put the most effort. for us the level of effort in

the number number of resources we applies that to be focused in way that has most. be one more quick question and then we do have to run. i've briefly prosecute domestic violence cases and sometimes the victims won't come forward. can you tell me -- i think within the military certainly the broad cultural challenges we have talked about or the damages you have as you have options in terms of punishment and discipline of the things that a normal criminal justice system would not have. how are you playing -- planning on using those situations where you may not be able to prosecute because of various other things but you still know there is a problem that needs to be addressed. can you explain some of the discretion you have used within the military chain of command to change the culture and punish perpetrators to discourage this behavior? >> yes sir. let me make a general comment and i will add detail in the specific incidents at lackland.

of the 59 incidents we are investigating 45 of those are cases couldn't prosecute under sexual assault prosecution. they're prosecuted in other professional relationships and we have the opportunity to engage or you might have a difficult time prosecuting outside the military. for a little more detail let me ask ed to expand on that. >> i think commanders have and will continue to use the entire suite of tools that they have to enforce discipline. the court-martial process using the uniform code of military justice is only one of those schools and his general welsh said in the cases we are looking at lackland we have cases where as the commander looked at all of the evidence that was available and decided a court-martial was not the appropriate venue to get to the right answer in terms of justice

in that case so they use some of the other tools that are available to them uniquely in the military justice system. i think it's something that is not as well understood oftentimes in terms of the decisions that commanders make in terms of the venue that is used to achieve the right outcome in a case in the fact that we can use nonjudicial punishment in other forms that in many cases would have the same sanctions as you would find in a court-martial but are done in a way that does not require the same level of standards of proof that a carb -- court-martial would is a very important tool that commanders can use to enforce discipline and get to a better outcome in more cases than if they did not have that tool. >> i think that cultural norms. i appreciate that and i think we are going to run and vote. i will yield back.

thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. the committee will stand in recess for about 15 minutes or so. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. mr. wilson. >> thank you mr. chairman and general's welsh and rice thank you for being here today. it is very uplifting to me general welsh as you are quoting air force secretary michael o'donnell he. he indicated that the air force is a family and that is the way i believe too and for me it's first-hand. my dad served in the flying tigers in the army air corps.

i'm very grateful i have a nephew who is serving in the air force today. i served 31 years in the army guard reserve and i have four sons serving in the air force and navy today. so it is family and we want the best for our family members. we want them to achieve to their highest in fulfilling achievement in military service which to me is an opportunity. the issues you are dealing with must be addressed. i'm particularly grateful too general rice that you are ahead of the curve. your leadership by selecting major general margaret woodward to conduct the command right to investigation has been so positive and i want to thank you. i would be grateful if any of my family members could serve with you. so thank you for what you have done. and indeed was general woodward's report, in meeting with her i was so impressed by her determination and her

confidence. she of course came through with 22 findings and the findings then directed 46 recommendations. these 46 recommendations were ways to address the problems to the rest of our military. i know that he will be implementing 45 of the 46 recommendations and from each of you have it like to get a report on what is the status of implementing these recommendations? >> thank you, sir. we have to date implemented 23 of the 46 recommendations. as you know there was one that i decided was not appropriate for this forum so we are going to implement 45 of the 46 and we have completed our implementation of 23 of them. some of the most important near-term actions that we have been able to complete especially as it addresses leadership and

as i indicated in response to an earlier question the reporting requirements to ensure that leadership is notified in a timely manner of issues. we aren't paced to implement the remaining recommendations by november of this year. some of them require a more deliberate process for implementations such as ensuring that we get the right leaders in position through the assignment cycle instead of just pulling people in who may not be appropriate for the position. as i indicated earlier we have got to go through the right process or training. we have some experience of what happens when we try to overload the training system. we did that not too long ago and the results were not satisfactory so i have directed we do this in an aggressive

deliberate manner so we get quality training done. so i'm comfortable that we have taken action on the most important recommendation near term. those that they couldn't implement and the way that we want to finally implement them we have taken initial temporary action to achieve that end state and i am briefed weekly on our progress in implementing the rest and we will get at those quickly. >> indeed, i have worked on such issues as a j.a.g. officer in the army guard. a concern i have on trainees being elected to report misconduct is always a concern about retaliation and pressure. how is this being addressed? >> you highlighted one of the most challenging issues that we have and that is how do we get

quality feed that from everyone, both trainees, instructors and others who are part of the system. we have a system of getting feet back now but it is not affected for us. when i look at the 59 victims less than a handful came to us to provide us feedback on what happened. totally unsatisfactory. we have got to find a better way of connecting with them. i think is part of the investigative process we have wrote an important ground on how to do that better. we know that you can't just asked the question once and expect that the initial answer is always going to provide an accurate assessment of what's going on. so how we talk to people and the persistence with which we engage them the right way is very key to this. we also know although victims oftentimes themselves won't

talk, they report for any number of reasons, they do talk to other people in many cases. they talk to their friends and i talk they talk to their families and talk to co-workers and by engaging those people in the right way we have been able to get a great deal of additional information on the cases that we have today. i believe the feedback and accurate feedback is one that we are going to continue to explore i have asked the rand corporation to specifically look at this issue. it's easy for me to sit down and write down a bunch of questions over a couple of hours and think i have an effect of survey. the actual facts tell us that isn't very effective and to do this right requires a sophisticated understanding of people and how they feel about these issues. i think they are going to help us understand how better to get at this area of better feedback. >> thank you very much.

ms. sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you the witnesses and generals for being before us. my question is of those military training instructors who have been convicted or under investigation did those service record showing the history of unprofessional behavior or sexual harassment prior to this? >> i am not aware of any that showed any behaviors of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. we have a screening process that before you become a military training instructor, we look back at your history for five years and you had to have essentially acclaimed history. that was way verbal by the crew commander and so that is another area where we have addressed that process, look at the background screening program and

we are doing everything we can to not as i said earlier that bring people into this environment that don't have a very strong and proven record of disciplinary history in addition to job performance. >> okay. in the air force as an airman or air woman that happens to be involved in a sexual harassment case, how does the air force received it? >> in a sexual harassment case? yes man the same way we deal with any misconduct with an airman. there are legalist visors and we go through an investigative process and make what you believe is the appropriate and proper decision. >> so, if you want to be one of these instructors anywhere being screened and you have had sexual harassment in the past on the job would would it necessarily a near record? >> i can create a scenario where it would not be.

>> various scenarios where they might not be? >> yes and various scenarios where it would not be. >> because it's a discretion of commanders are certain people as to how they are going to deal with it? a lot of times the sexual harassment that type of situation may not show up on somebody's record, am i correct? >> i believe you and i might disagree on the term a lot of times. i would not tolerate a. >> you would not tolerate it but there are various instances correct for the commander can have a choice of doing other things? >> certainly. be if this instructor -- 1 of the instructor, is being transferred to another unit, with that new commander necessarily know that they have had a sexual harassment episode in the past?